The bill is expected to face legal challenges.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday that will prohibit children younger than 14 from joining social media in the state. Those who are 14 or 15 will need a parent’s consent before they join a platform.

The bill, HB3, also directs social media companies to delete the existing accounts of those who are under 14. Companies that fail to do so could be sued on behalf of the child who creates an account on the platform. The minor could be awarded up to $10,000 in damages, according to the bill. Companies found to be in violation of the law would also be liable for up to $50,000 per violation, as well as attorney’s fees and court costs.

“Ultimately, [we’re] trying to help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids, and so I appreciate the work that’s been put in,” DeSantis said in remarks during the bill-signing ceremony.

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
    741·
    9 months ago

    Most of them are already 13+, so really this is only extending that by 1 year. It’s performative. Also he’s going to make everyone under 14 want to create accounts now just in hopes that the company doesn’t delete it and they can sue for their $10k.

    I wonder what qualifies as ‘social media’. Is a Steam account ‘social media’? Its social features tick most of the boxes.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        8·
        9 months ago

        Oh man I had forgotten about scratch. So much time spent there in middle school and high school classes. Still kinda surprised I wasn’t a CS major.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      16·
      9 months ago

      I wonder what qualifies as ‘social media’. Is a Steam account ‘social media’? Its social features tick most of the boxes.

      I linked to the text in a top-level comment.

      “Social media platform” means an online forum, website, or application that satisfies each of the following criteria:

      1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or activity of other users;

      2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days when using the online forum, website, or application during the previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during the previous month;

      3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and

      4. Has any of the following addictive features:

      a. Infinite scrolling, which means either:

      (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a separate page; or

      (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible or apparent end or page breaks.

      b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum, website, or application to inform a user about specific activities or events related to the user’s account.

      c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content.

      d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for that video.

      e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time.

      The term does not include an online service, website, or application where the exclusive function is e-mail or direct messaging consisting of text, photographs, pictures, images, or videos shared only between the sender and the recipients, without displaying or posting publicly or to other users not specifically identified as the recipients by the sender.

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        I think that Criterion 2 is going to limit the practical impact of the law. The burden of the proof will be on the plaintiff, so they’re going to have to prove what a percentage of the userbase under a certain age is doing, and I don’t see as how even the social media company is going to know with great certainty what the age of its userbase is, much less a plaintiff.

      • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
        10·
        9 months ago

        Does this mean that Lemmy is not social media because it’s not ranking content with an algorithm?

        I guess it depends on the definition of algorithm is as just sorting by newest is a type of algorithm.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        9 months ago

        I’d be willing to bet that most liberals realize that banning TikTok is not the solution. The real solution is comprehensive privacy and data protection laws that all companies operating in the US have to follow.

        But maybe that’s too nuanced for you.

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      321·
      9 months ago

      That and he’s taking away any social support for kids that may not have any irl.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      306·
      9 months ago

      How does not having a social media account keep people away from information? You can browse most social media sites without an account, and most actual information is hosted on other sites anyways.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        225·
        9 months ago

        I don’t have social media and most links to Facebook, Twitter… MANY sites… redirect straight to a login page.

        Your DGAF always-logged-in xp is not indicative of the population who don’t use those services…

        • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
          64·
          9 months ago

          Some sites are like that, sure ( I also don’t have accounts on any of those though), but once again, social media sites rarely host actual information itself. Certainly not important information at least.

    • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
      5·
      9 months ago

      How will they enforce this. By asking for ID. So YOU and ME can be tracked and harassed for being different than them.

  • Neato@ttrpg.networkEnglish
    47·
    9 months ago

    Ah so it’s not even a criminal law. It allows a civil suit just like the Texas abortion harassment law. Fuck you desantis. And fuck Florida for electing him.

  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
    24·
    9 months ago

    Man, I sure do hope a bunch of 14 and 15 years don’t end up joining all those conservative social media sites. Just think, getting sued when your company is already failing, we would be real bad news for investors.

  • nikscha@feddit.de
    242·
    9 months ago

    I like the idea of protecting children from algorithms that make you addicted and lead to doom-scrolling. But you don’t to that by restricting the individual, but by restricting the corporations.

  • Stormygeddon@startrek.website
    22·
    9 months ago

    Don’t social media prevent 13 year olds and under from signing up anyway? They ask for your age but it doesn’t seem to keep kids from lying about their age and going on facebook, instagram, twitter, TikTok, etc, regardless. That’s disregarding the idea that a child could just use their parent’s account. What’s the enforcement besides the honor system and a vague threat of being sued? I am failing to see a difference between the state of things now and what that bill wants to introduce.

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      6·
      9 months ago

      My thoughts exactly. This will change nothing. But he can say he’s saving children from big nasty corporations when he’s up for election.

  • Maeve@kbin.social
    20·
    9 months ago

    “Ultimately, [we’re] trying to help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids, and so I appreciate the work that’s been put in,” DeSantis said in remarks during the bill-signing ceremony.

    Looks like youth detention residential schools are next on his agenda.

    • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
      6·
      9 months ago

      All they want to is ro remove anonymity on social media so they can target the people who are different.

      I wholeheartedly believe childrens should not be on the internet unsupervised but that is the parents responsibility not mine. I don’t want to have to give up my Rights just so they can track and harass the black dude or the trans person they hate.

      • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        They’ve been pushing this shit for over a decade. SOPA, PIPA, etc… It has nothing to do with children.

        If they actually cared, they would fight for fare wages, worker rights, and cut worker hours so families can actually spend time together.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        2·
        9 months ago

        More than one thing can be true at once, you know? It’s probably a combination of reasons, none legitimate.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    14·
    9 months ago

    Democrats pass COPA … Republicans scream gov overreach.

    Republicans pass basically same law… This is good for American morality

  • morriscox@lemmy.world
    9·
    9 months ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children’s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act

    Introduced by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat President.

    “Although children under 13 can legally give out personal information with their parents’ permission, many websites—particularly social media sites, but also other sites that collect most personal info—disallow children under 13 from using their services altogether due to the cost and work involved in complying with the law.”

      • morriscox@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        That’s my impression. The difference is being officially forced to hunt down those accounts instead of them doing it themselves because they don’t want the hassle of dealing with COPPA. Not creating accounts for those who are younger than 13 is already a thing. The real problem is parents are typically creating these accounts. I keep telling them not to do that and every time they ignore me.